Bayonets: better than drones?

"By knife," by Jaroslav Veshin. 1913

Word comes that Predator drones kill far more civilians than they do militants and may actually be prolonging the wars in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan:

Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly "precision." American officials vehemently dispute these figures, and it is likely that more militants and fewer civilians have been killed than is reported by the press in Pakistan. Nevertheless, every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.

The continuing use of these attacks shows that a lot of the military leaders still don't understand the Guerrilla Problem, namely that they're fighting a grievance, not an army. Each Predator drone costs $15 million. The new, angry recruits for the causes they're supposed to be destroying come free of charge.

Now, consider the bayonet charge:

In May 2004, approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy.

---

The battle began when over 100 Mahdi army fighters ambushed two unarmored vehicles transporting around 20 Argylls on the isolated Route Six highway near the southern city of Amarah. Ensconced in trenches along the road, the militiamen fired mortars, rocket propelled grenades, and machine gun rounds. The vehicles stopped and British troops returned fire. The Mahdi barrage caused enough damage to force the troops to exit the vehicles.The soldiers quickly established a defensive perimeter and radioed for reinforcements from the main British base at Amarah – Camp Abu Naji. Reinforcements from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment assisted the Argyles in an offensive operation against the Mahdi militiamen. When ammunition ran low among the British troops, the decision was made to fix bayonets for a direct assault.

The British soldiers charged across 600 feet of open ground toward enemy trenches. They engaged in intense hand-to-hand fighting with the militiamen. Despite being outnumbered and lacking ammunition, the Argylls and Princess of Wales troops routed the enemy. The British troops killed about 20 militiamen in the bayonet charge and between 28 and 35 overall. Only three British soldiers were injured.

Twenty militants killed. Zero soldiers killed. Zero civilian casualties. That's a hit rate of 100 percent. The cost of a military-grade bayonet appears to be around $60, tops. 

Just something to think about the next time you hear a new weapons system being touted as the end to our military ills.

Of course, there's also the even more cunning tactic of not getting into idiotic quagmire wars in the first place. That costs nothing.

(a tip o' the hat to the Grumpy Owl for the Science Monitor link)

Comments

[Mark]

It’s unclear what the terse and simplistic tone of this post is meant to accomplish.

Killing with a knife/bayonet during counterinsurgency is harder, more costly, and it takes longer. Clearly, you would like to see more NATO and American troops using bayonets on the ground in Pakistan.

“Of course, there's also the even more cunning tactic of not getting into idiotic quagmire wars in the first place. That costs nothing.”

Also, getting into wars is not a tactic despite what you might think.